PARMESHRI Vs. NAURATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the facts are that Ram Saran, the father of the plaintiff, died on 8-111966. The defendant got the mutation of the land sanctioned in his favour on the basis of a will alleged to have been executed by Ram Saran in his favour. The plaintiff challenging the execution and validity of the will, filed a suit for possession which was contested by the defendant. He controverted the allegations of the plaintiff and alleged that the will was duly executed by Ram Saran deceased in his favour in lieu of services.

(2.) The trial Court held that Ram Saran executed a valid will in favour of the defendant. Consequently it dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff the first appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the same. In second appeal to this Court a compromise was effected between the parties according to which it was agreed that an amount of Rupees 15,000/- would be paid by the respondent to the appellant in instalments and in case he failed to pay any of the instalments, the suit of the plaintiff would stand decreed. The matter was listed before me and I, in accordance with the compromise, passed the following judgment:

(3.) The main question for determination is that if a conditional decree for possession on payment of certain amount within a specified period is passed in favour of a party and it fails to pay the amount within that time, whether the Court is entitled to extend time for payment under S. 148, Civi1 P. C., for sufficient cause? The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Court has the power to extend time under S. 148 of the Code. In support of his contention he made reference to Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das, AIR 1961 SC 882, Smt. Periyakkal v. Smt. Dakshyani, AIR 1983 SC 428, Jadabendra Nath Mishra v. Smt. Manorama Debya, AIR 1970 Cal 199, Gobardhan Singh v. Barsati, AIR 1972 All 246 (FB) and New Bangesree Bastralaya v. Ramanlal Phurma Karta, AIR 1976 Cal 335.